Singular Cycles like to do their own thing and often release stuff without much fanfare, they snuck out the Spitfire a while back.
It now appears that they're taking pre-orders on the Albatross, a titanium 32"er.
I've no idea if 32" is a step forward or just the industry trying to sell you something new & sadly Singular titanium bikes are well beyond my means, but it's an interesting development nonetheless.
Details here - https://singularcycles.com/products/albatross
Is that £3499 for the bike as specified do you think? It says 'rolling chassis' but then appears to list virtually a complete bike.
I remember first time I jumped on a 29er, it immediately made sense to me with no apparent drawbacks (for my purposes). That bike got me into gravel, then a dedicated gravel bike, but subsequently my gravel has gotten wilder and rougher so I'm sort of gravitating back to the 29er. I don't honestly see any reason not to try a 32", I think it would suit me and my riding down to the ground.
Pinkbike's testing suggested it might be marginally faster even on rougher XC courses, I would be using it for MTB touring.
...starts saving...
D'oh, answered my own question:
These are sold as a 'rolling chassis' including:
- Albatross frame in 3Al 2.5V seamless Titanium - butted main tubes
- 32 inch specific full carbon Columbus Futura Adventure fork
- Hope ZS44/EC44 headset
- Hope hubs laced to Willow Al rims with Sapim Race spokes
- Maxxis Aspen 32x2.4" tyres
I am oddly aroused.
I don't honestly see any reason not to try a 32"
It's just a tweener size. Since I'm 6ft3 I'm waiting for 36er. And that's when 32 will go the way of 650b.
I've no idea if 32" is a step forward or just the industry trying to sell you something new
A bit of both. Everyone I know of average height or above (I'm 6') who's had any reasonable amount of time on them likes them, there does seem to be a positive theme there. I really liked them, they do bias the bikes ride feel or geometry but it can be a good thing particularly for a rigid or adventure/explorer style bike. Interested to ride a slight short travel FS 32" now, but it's rigid or short travel HT 32s that have most appeal to me personally.
I don't honestly see any reason not to try a 32", I think it would suit me and my riding down to the ground.
*looks at 4 29er bikes in shed*
*looks at bank balance*
Bloody hell - I'm just dipping into the world of 29ers with mullet... & now we're jumping up a size already?
There's quite a detailed write up from Sam below, for those of you that understand such things.
https://singularcycles.com/blogs/projects/the-albatross-an-experiment-in-big-wheels
I like the look of this.
Next build for something different maybe.
Anyone know what stem is on the pics - it's not the Ti Laing stem that they offer on their website?
it's lovely looking thing but 32 is absolutely a tweener size and only about 5% difference from a 29+ with a 3.25 like a duro crux, without the comfort, or grip and marginal weight saving. It's why so many companies are jumping on a 32 as they only need to make a marginal tweak to a 29er to make a shiny new thing (slightly longer chainstay, slight bb drop, any 29er fork with an axle to crown of 470mm or greater will take a 32")
Jelle from just pedal.nl has stuck 32" wheels straight into his jeff jones titanium plus 29+ frame set and it fits with no tweaks needed and by all accounts rides pretty much the same as 29+ with a slight difference in marginally smother over roots and very slightly slower up to speed.
it is vert much like when companies discovered they could fit a 27.5+ into a 29er frame and suddenly that became a new thing.
going 36 does take some bigger geometry changes particularly around fork offset to make them handle properly.
Taz- tried 32 (may keep the 32 front wheel for a different project to make a super size trek 69 replica with a 32 27.5 for a laugh), went back to 29+ and also has a custom 36.
it's lovely looking thing but 32 is absolutely a tweener size and only about 5% difference from a 29+ with a 3.25 like a duro crux, without the comfort, or grip and marginal weight saving.
Yeah but I guess for more gravellish purposes when you don't want to be running fatter tyres, this way you can benefit from the increased rollover etc. but with narrower 45/50mm tyres?
i'm 5ft 5" i have no desire to ever want to try one of those 32" bikes. 29" is big enough for me (i still like 26" and 27.5").
any 29er fork with an axle to crown of 470mm or greater will take a 32")
Not trying to deliberately be a dick, but surely that's not true? Yes the a2c is important for the geo, but unless it's a USD fork, then surely tyre clearance to the arch for an extra inch and a half of wheel is quite a restrictive thing?
i'm 5ft 5" i have no desire to ever want to try one of those 32" bikes. 29" is big enough for me (i still like 26" and 27.5").
You'll be ok, you won't be forced to ride one, they don't make them in your size 😉
"Not trying to deliberately be a dick, but surely that's not true? Yes the a2c is important for the geo, but unless it's a USD fork, then surely tyre clearance to the arch for an extra inch and a half of wheel is quite a restrictive thing?"
sorry was referring to rigid forks, rather than bouncy silliness as that's what most 32 folks are going for at the moment. 32 does fit in my manitou 29+ fork from my old trek stache though! (not tried under full compression as suspension is the work of cads and bounders)
also worth noting that if a crux 29 x 3.25 will clear it only about 12mm difference from tyre to fork crown to a 32"
I'd like to see the geometry changes applied in order to make a 32" bike. Specifically, it would be good to know the chainstay length and the wheelbase as well as the position of the grips in relation to the BB compared to a similarly sized 29er. And, of course, the normal trail figure for the front wheel.
As we saw with 29ers, the problem with introducing a new wheelsize is the frame and contact points have to be radically redesigned/repositioned in order to fit the wheels in. It's not clear whether the improvements come from the wheels or the new geometry but people seem to assume it must be the increased wheel diameter.
The thing is, I suspect most of the improvements come from the new geometry (one that no one seems to consider is your hands are much higher up if you put a bigger wheel on the front) but you can recreate the geometry benefits with smaller wheels then is a new standard really needed?
i'm 5ft 5" i have no desire to ever want to try one of those 32" bikes. 29" is big enough for me (i still like 26" and 27.5").
You'll be ok, you won't be forced to ride one, they don't make them in your size 😉
apologies you are quite right. am just worried that the bike industry will make all 27.5 and 29 obsolete and force everyone onto 32 (like they made 26 and 27.5 obsolete).
sorry was referring to rigid forks, rather than bouncy silliness as that's what most 32 folks are going for at the moment. 32 does fit in my manitou 29+ fork from my old trek stache though! (not tried under full compression as suspension is the work of cads and bounders)
Ah gotcha, I was talking about mountain bikes rather than gravel bikes and sit-up-and-begs for hipsters. :p 😀
(Jokes, i have no time for trail tribalism, we're all just bike pilots)
"Ah gotcha, I was talking about mountain bikes rather than gravel bikes and sit-up-and-begs for hipsters. :p 
"
Well, I'm small fat fluffy and like running in wheel, so I'm definitely a hamster
The 32" I saw fitted into a Jones Plus 29+ bike looked like slim clearances. But I think the difference is that Plus tyres (29 and 27.5) worked great in some conditions and (imho) felt awful in others.
I liked how 32" had geometry and rolling differences to 29" but the 2.4" casing felt about right for a wider range of terrain.
Usefully a 32" fits many ~480mm rigid 29er forks.
am just worried that the bike industry will make all 27.5 and 29 obsolete and force everyone onto 32 (like they made 26 and 27.5 obsolete).
No chance. 27.5 only exists on rear ends, forks are rare, but 32" won't replace what we have now. Probably just displace some of the 29" wheels.
I think there will be chaos in DH when someone starts using 32" front wheels.
Just had a though I'm off to see if I can redo my old Stache with 32", rather than the new thing that I've got! (bloody idiot)
The frame is sitting in the spares pile and totally forgot I had a sliding drop outs in it and over a 29+ you only need about 15mm extra in the chainstay.
I'll pop a rigid fork in with a slightly lower axle to crown to bring the bb back down by about 12-15 mm and that should be sweet.
I also have a spare fork with a 65mm offset so that should be super nimble.
The thing is, I suspect most of the improvements come from the new geometry (one that no one seems to consider is your hands are much higher up if you put a bigger wheel on the front) but you can recreate the geometry benefits with smaller wheels then is a new standard really needed?
I'd agree that much of the gains in some ride situations are from the frame geometry changes not the wheels themselves, but some of them are enabled by the wheels - you can't have that much BB drop w/o larger wheels. That deep BB drop is quite something to ride. And the contact patch shape change is visually obvious as well as probably a large part of what makes the bike / wheels feel the way they do when cornering.
The rest of it e.g. a taller stack and longer chainstay could have been applied to any wheel size bike in the past, and is if you look at Rivendells these days, but no-one was asking for 490mm chainstays on 29ers or high stack gravel bikes - despite how good they can be to ride, particularly long chainstays. Pro and cons as always, and the truth that geometry is about marketing by numbers or creating categories via quantitive stuff as much as actual ride quality which is far harder to describe or sell.
There's also new bike day syndrome in all this - I was buzzing after riding a 32" for a few hours, as much as anything simply from the novelty value. Quite easy to over-hype traits at that stage. Thing is though, it did ride well and differently - if it didn't I wouldn't have had so much fun in a different way to my regular bikes. I've ridden other bikes in recent years that just sulked in the garage for weeks on end because I just CBA to ride them, they made no good impression on me for some reason or did nothing new for my riding, so I chose other bikes instead. For me, a 32" bike is not one of those bikes, it'd have me out riding all the time at the moment.
Will save any more thoughts until I've had more time on them. I thought Sam's article up there was very good, echoes some of my thoughts and impressions. Interesting to read as he's had a bit more time on them than I have and I used to live on the other side of the valley there and know those trails well.
That deep BB drop is quite something to ride.
See, BB drop is one of those things where I'm not sure how it makes a difference. The centre of mass (either of the bike + rider or only the rider) is going to be the important factor. In that case the height of the BB is going to be important, not the height relative to the axle line. The only thing I can think is that the horizontal component of the force through the BB creates a negative torque to counteract the positive torque of the wheel hitting a bump. It's possible but it feels unlikely to be enough to notice (although obviously a lack of suspension would make it more noticeable).
I think I need to see a force diagram to understand where the difference in BB drop is coming from and if it is enough to be significant.
In corners the bike is rotating around the contact patches so I really don't think the BB drop is going to affect that. The only exception would be if the COM of the bike itself was changed although again I don't think that would be significant.
And the contact patch shape change is visually obvious as well as probably a large part of what makes the bike / wheels feel the way they do when cornering.
I think we've talked about this before but the change in contact patch shape as you change the wheel size is something that I definitely disagree with. In fact, I did the calculation recently (or rather, I got ChatGPT to do the calculation) an in order to reduce the length of the contact patch of a 2.5" tyre on a 29er wheel by 1mm you would have to reduce the outer diameter of the tyre to something like 90mm. So basically get rid of the rim, spokes, and hubs.
I'd really like to see some proper head to heads of wheel sizes where the wheelbase, chainstay length, BB height (not BB drop), front normal trail, RAD distance, and RAD angle were all kept the same and the only difference was the wheel size. Obviously use same tyres, same tyre pressure, etc.
Then, if it turns out the vast majority of the change is coming from the geometry and not the increased wheel diameter then just start making 29er bikes with the better geometry and don't give us a new wheel size standard (which is going to result in new hub standard, which is going to result in a new crankset standard, etc).
I still ride 27.5 both ends and can take on pretty much most trails. Its the rider, not the wheels. Those 32" will be great in a straight line but guessing will have the agility and turning circle of a bus. Still, if taller riders feel better on them, thats a plus.
I think I need to see a force diagram to understand where the difference in BB drop is coming from and if it is enough to be significant.
Me too when it comes to the roll over feel. There's a change in the angle between the impact contact point at the tyre and the axle, the angle of attack and 'timing' there, and there's your weight through the BB being lower relative to the axle. That bike rolled over choppy ground very well. The long wheelbase also would have helped. It reminded me of the Jones Plus in that respect.
I get your point that w/o a totally like-for-like geometry we can't isolate the wheel effect, it would certainly be a useful experiment, but wheels are part of (or can dictate) the geometry and the design. A bike is a sum of the parts. Perhaps the falsehood here is anyone saying '32" is better!' .. I ride a bike, not a wheel. A 32" bike may work better (more efficient, comfier, more enjoyable whatever) for me sometimes, that's all.
I think we've talked about this before but the change in contact patch shape as you change the wheel size is something that I definitely disagree with.
Let's agree to disagree : )
So reading some of the above comment, coupled with being an obtuse skeptic and ever-cynical about most things thing the bike industry wants to sell us all, is this not just 29+ minus the tyre volume?
TBH I´ve only bent my tiny mind around 29" in recent years, I´m still bitter about 26" being all but dumped (but have come to terms with it) and less than a year ago I started dabbling with a Mullet MTBs long after everyone else.
I guess I´m still not clear exactly who is 32" for?
Is it just slightely bigger waggon wheels for XC (noting the comments about 36") are they expecting muggles to buy into this latest wheel fad? is it really credible for everyone will we all be able to trundle them around local trails and have as much fun on uplifted trails? I have Shorter mates who honestly don´t feel they can ride a 29er as aggressively as a 26" or 27.5" simply due to their own physical constraints, not everyone who rides an MTB is 6´4"+...
I also can´t help feeling they´ve had their go at pissing about with wheel sizes for a while, they´ve used up would be customers tolerance for a while. Most punters would probably like some stability and less forced obsolescence and to feel like they can buy a bike today and ride it for maybe 5 years without being told it´s a useless dead-end product, that spares have evaporated and they need to now spunk £4k at a new dandyhorse every 24 months or else give the "sport" up. <sigh>...
I´m sure I´ll be shouted down again and told that making slightly bigger circles is a bleeding edge "innovation" or that I´m just a skinflint (fair diagnosis) but honestly, I´m tiring of the bicycle industry and it´s repetitive marketing habits...
Planning a 32F 29R HT build, just need to get round to building the wheel, unless @tazzymtb wants to off load his spare for a good price
As a 6'3" biffer I'd like a go on one.
As soon as I swung my leg over a 29er for the first time, coming from 26er it just immediately felt and looked right.
I think this could be a further improvement (but probably.morearginal) for some types of bikes (xc, gravel) but I worry that the agility and wheel strength could suffer for rowdier stuff
As someone who's 6'4" I should be interested in this.
One assumes these wheels will clearly need wider axles to make them strong enough, right?
"...the change in contact patch shape as you change the wheel size is something that I definitely disagree with. In fact, I did the calculation recently (or rather, I got ChatGPT to do the calculation) an in order to reduce the length of the contact patch of a 2.5" tyre on a 29er wheel by 1mm you would have to reduce the outer diameter of the tyre to something like 90mm. So basically get rid of the rim, spokes, and hubs."
So, that disclaimer about ChatGPT giving wrong answers...
The shape of contact patches being linked to tyre geometry is not some pie in the sky marketing creativity, it's a long established part of pneumatic tyre design. Even basic intuitive analysis (assuming you understand enough maths/physics/engineering) confirms it.
Regarding the why of 32"? It might win XC races where tiny margins happen. People like buying new things so if you're tooling up to win races you might as well sell products on the back of it. We know 29" tyres have plenty of pros (and some cons) vs smaller tyres, so it's not rocket science to extrapolate to a 32" tyre.
Not sure why people are saying it's the same size as a 29+ tyre - few of them are over 3" nowadays, so little over 30" diameter. 26 is 559mm, 27.5 is 584, 29 is 622, 32 is 686. So that's steps of 25mm to 27.5, 38mm to 29, and then 64mm to 32. It's MUCH bigger.
I can't see it working on the back for bikes made for anything steep/gnarly/twisty - even with very tall riders the packaging will be very difficult to get a wheelbase that works on twistier trails. Probably good for covering ground or going fast in straighter lines over the rough. As an average height trail rider I'm liking full 29" on my hardtail and mullet on my longer travel full-sus and suspect the bigger wheels will struggle on our tight local singletrack.
I agree that a wider axle standard is probably needed and that that's annoying. As hardly any WC DH bikes are still full 29 (any at all?), I think we might not see 32"+29" DH mullets catching on, unless the very tallest riders push for it.
"Most punters would probably like some stability and less forced obsolescence and to feel like they can buy a bike today and ride it for maybe 5 years without being told it´s a useless dead-end product, that spares have evaporated and they need to now spunk £4k at a new dandyhorse every 24 months or else give the "sport" up."
You might FEEL this but none of it's actually true.
I’m hoping it doesn’t take off enough that they force changes on everyone - mainly through replacing axle widths again with super super boost or something. More than happy for it to be an option for taller riders / anyone interested in dabbling with different things though.
I think there will be chaos in DH when someone starts using 32" front wheels.
And BooWoost 135mm front hub spacing to be able to build a stiff enough wheel. Actually they'll probably make it 132mm
I rode from Sam's with a friend on the albatross, set up with drops. I didn't have a go cos pedals, but it looked lovely, and crazy light with carbon rims and forks. And the guy riding it was noticeably less muddy than the rest of us at the end. #makesyouthink #hoverbike
Big wheels build fine with boost hubs, you can go a wee bit wider if you want, but if it goes to fatty widths then you"re well into the world of custom cut spokes.
Another positive, 32's fit in a normal wheel building jig.
I also can´t help feeling they´ve had their go at pissing about with wheel sizes for a while, they´ve used up would be customers tolerance for a while.
I´m tiring of the bicycle industry and it´s repetitive marketing habits...
Me too, but that's me and my perception of it all over time, not the sport-fashion industry doing what sport-fashion industries do. It's so predictable and we don't need to care about any of it. It's still possible to have a great MTB for 10+ years and enjoy it and not have any standards-related angst, but if we want all the toys that are current 'must haves' that also have fairly short service lives then we'll probably have to change with fashion and technical 'progress'.
I think 32's a stupid thing for the bike industry to be doing, daft timing. But it doesn't mean having the option is bad and these things crop up because we're all interested in bikes that do what we want in a better way, we can't put a stop on change or only have change in some areas.
If only they did C2W.
The discussion on axle height and bottom bracket drop is very interesting. Here are my thoughts.
The hypothesis is that you are less likely to go over the bars, braking on a smooth road, if your front wheel is larger. Keeping all other variables the same.
My initial thoughts are that this hypothesis is wrong. If you go over the bars you rotate about contact patch of the front tyre so the height of the front axle is irrelevant.
So, on smooth roads, i think bikes with bigger wheels feel more stable because of the geometry. The front wheel is further in front of the riders centre of gravity.
On rough terrain i think the stability comes from the greater roller over of the larger wheel. Hitting the same size obstacle the larger the wheel the more vertical the force between the tyre and the obstacle. So the force lifting the front wheel over the obstacle is increased and the horizontal force slowing the bike is decreased. This decrease in the force slowing the bike is crucial, because as we know slowing a bike increases the load on the front wheel.
The only time i can imagine front axle height mattering is if something grabs the front wheel, like a bog of doom. When that happens you do rotate about the front axle.
I found the longitudinal dynamics part of this article a useful read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics
But i really want a Singular Albatross. I’m really not a bike swapper. I’ve bought 4 this century. 3 are in regular use and the 4th has been thrown in the mixed metals bin at the tip. The logical next bike is an ebike. But a big tyre rigid bike works so well round here
Having ridden a Krampus 29+ for many years (with a 3" DHF the wheels are about 30.5" in diameter) I love the bigger wheels, and see no downsides for a rider of my height (6ft).
I do wonder if 32" wheels would fit my frame? Hmmm 🤨
The Albatross is super boost at the back 157mm 🙁
The Singular website needs some work. I can’t find the rolling chassis details on their website, instead they have cut and paste the build details from Swift
I also note vee tire have an option. Just £125 an end. In think they weigh 1.6kg each
That’s 2 gulps from me
The Singular website needs some work. I can’t find the rolling chassis details on their website, instead they have cut and paste the build details from Swift
Agreed, it's terrible
You have to click on Design Notes
^ I think that bog of doom point is useful to think on and hitting a hole or a root is similar, there is resistance to forward motion at the contact patch while the brakes are off.
One thought is about how a bike with a a lot of BB drop BB can be a bit harder to hop or manual than a bike with a negative BB drop (assume actual chainstay length is the same), because to get the lots-of-BB-drop bike into a manual the horizontal effective rear-centre has to get a bit longer before it gets shorter (as the bike rotates around the rear axle). A bike with a BB above the axle line shortens the horizontal RC as soon as you begin to lift the f wheel up. Small changes yes but suggested to be part of it all by some. It's a different input force but that same BB to axle relationship / system is happening in reverse at the front centre when you hit something, suggesting that a lot of BB drop resists endo a bit more (or helps create 'a planted feel' etc). Probably to a minor extent though, considering the range of BB location we're talking about.
Front centre length matters, that's part of the lever between the f wheel and the rider's weight acting at the BB and the r wheel (the wheelbase line pivoting at the axles or BB as the bike moves along the choppy ground). If the front end moves up pivoting around the rear axle, where your BB is along that line changes the force needed to move the front wheel up, but whether your BB was 80mm above or below the axle line doesn't change that force (not for smaller wheelbase line movements from horizontal anyway), it doesn't change the front wheel's ability to move up and over a bump. So I don't think BB drop matters much in that particular force diagram.
Your ability to position your CoG on the bike or to resist forces is different with a low BB though so maybe that's what's mostly changing the way the bike feels, your position and where it balances, feeling closer to the centre of movement rather than significant changes in than the forward-rolling force diagram result from a greater BB drop.
Intrigued to look at those forces now, not as any pro-32 thing, but to try to understand what/where the changes actually are.
I also note vee tire have an option. Just £125 an end. In think they weigh 1.6kg each
That’s 2 gulps from me
Same from me that the 32" Aspens are under 800g - very light for such a big tyre. The Vittoria Peyote 32 x 2.4 is also really light. The 30mm rims on the 32" I rode were only around 650g I think, the wheels could have been lighter than my 29er with 2.4 EXOs or 2.6 T7 tyres. They'll have been spinning slower for a given speed too so all that would have been a big part of why they felt much less clumsy than expected. Plus the fast rolling feel of a light casing.
I think the point about greater BB drop causing a greater lengthening of front and rear centre as the bike rotates is a good one.
Also, when thinking laterally, due to the fork offset the front wheel is only centred in the frame when pointing dead ahead. If the steering is turned at all then the BB is no longer in the centre between each hub. If you steer with the turn then static mass at the BB will try to bring the bike back to vertical, if you counter-steer then that same mass will pull the bike into a greater lean angle.
These things may all seem marginal but bear in mind that we consider a 63 deg HA DH slack and 67 deg XC steep. Just 4 degrees is a big deal in bike handling. Humans can be very sensitive to small changes (we’re also very adaptable which is why a great rider on an antique will still be fine!)
Not sure why people are saying it's the same size as a 29+ tyre - few of them are over 3" nowadays, so little over 30" diameter. 26 is 559mm, 27.5 is 584, 29 is 622, 32 is 686. So that's steps of 25mm to 27.5, 38mm to 29, and then 64mm to 32. It's MUCH bigger.
Tyres, when you embiggen the width you embiggen the depth...
And the Radial differnce in rims needs the depth of tyres adding to make meaningful sense...
